DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-Final Office Action addressing U.S. Application 18/505,583.
On November 19, 2025, a Non-Final Office Action (“NFOA”) was mailed in which claims 1-4, 8-11, and 15-18 were rejected as being anticipated by Dutta.
On February 11, 2025, the Applicant filed their response to the NFOA which included claim amendments and arguments toward the outstanding rejections.
On March 12, 2026, a Final Rejection was mailed in which claims 1-4, 8-11, and 15-18 were rejected as being anticipated by Pantaleev.
On June 1, 2026, the Applicant filed a Response After Final comprising arguments toward the outstanding rejections.
On June 18, 2026 an Advisory Action was mailed in which the Examiner indicted the Applicant’s arguments to be unpersuasive.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 7, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4,8-11, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0232519 hereinafter “Nguyen”) which claims priority to provisional application 63/138,747.
The Examiner finds the Nguyen provisional discloses each of the limitations of claim 1 in the non-provisional at figure 5 and the associated description.
Referring to method claim 1, apparatus claim 8, and computer readable medium claim 15, Nguyen teaches, an apparatus (i.e. a UE or first wireless device), comprising one or more processors (see figure 3), and memory storing instructions that when executed by the one or more processors (see figure 3), cause the wireless device to perform a method, the method comprising:
determining, by a first wireless device, a wireless device one or more wireless devices among a second wireless device and a third wireless device for inter user equipment (inter-UE) coordination (see ¶¶ 103-106) based on:
one or more first sidelink transmissions transmitted by the second wireless device (see ¶¶ 103-106);
of one or more second sidelink transmissions transmitted by the third wireless device (see ¶¶ 103-106); and
one or more first resources of the one or more first sidelink transmissions being overlapped with one or more second resources of the one or more second sidelink transmissions (see ¶ 103); and
transmitting coordination information for the inter-UE coordination to the second wireless device based on the determined one or more wireless devices comprising the second wireless device the determining (see ¶ 103).
Nguyen fails to expressly disclose determining a first priority of the first sidelink transmission and a second priority of a second sidelink transmission, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention to perform those determinations in view of Nguyen because Nguyen discloses the detected type of resource conflict being a high priority traffic confict. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification to determine which UE to message for resource reselection as suggested by Nguyen (see ¶¶ 103-106).
Referring to claim method claim 2, apparatus claim 9, and computer readable medium claim 16, Nguyen teaches the method claims 1, the apparatus claim 9, and the computer readable medium of claim 16, and Nguyen further teaches the first wireless device is an intended receiver of the one or more first sidelink transmissions by the second wireless device and the one or more second sidelink transmissions by the third wireless device (see ¶¶ 103-106).
Referring to claim method claim 3, apparatus claim 10, and computer readable medium claim 17, Nguyen teaches the method claims 1, the apparatus claim 9, and the computer readable medium of claim 16, and Nguyen further determining, based on the inter-UE coordination, at least one of the one or more first resources and the one or more second resources (see ¶¶ 103-106).
Referring to claim method claim 4, apparatus claim 11, and computer readable medium claim 18, Nguyen teaches the method claims 1, the apparatus claim 9, and the computer readable medium of claim 16, and Nguyen further selecting a first set of resources of the one or more first resources; or selecting a second set of resources of the one or more second resources (see ¶¶ 103-106).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 12-14, 19, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Referring to claims 5, 12, and 19, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fails to fairly teach or suggest determining second and third wireless devices belong to a wireless group based on first time duration and a second time duration respectively, in combination with the other requirements of the claims. Claims 6 and 7 would be allowable at least based on their dependence on claim 5. Claims 13 and 14 would be allowable at least based on their dependence on claim 12. Claim 20 would be allowable at least based on its dependence on claim 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERON J SORRELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-6PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Fuelling can be reached at 571-270-1367. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Signed:
/ERON J SORRELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights